How many judgments cite Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT?

281 judgments on BharatTax cite Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT (49 ITR 112), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 69A, Section 143(2), Section 147.

Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT

49 ITR 112Supreme Court of India1963#279 most cited

What is Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT authority for?

An assessee must explain the source of entries in their account books and prove that the sums are not income; the department is not initially required to prove anything. However, the department cannot unreasonably reject a good explanation, thereby converting valid proof into no proof.

281

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT · onus of proof · cash credit · unexplained money · source of funds · high denomination notes · Section 68 · Section 69A · department's burden · unreasonable explanation rejection

Also reported as

2 SCR 552

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 133(6)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 110 section 69d paper company share capital and share premium section 31 section 251(2)creditworthiness of the creditor source of source survey under section 133a section 69b addition u/s 68 section 250(4)

Judgments citing Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT

DCIT- 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jagaon Franchisee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2998/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 68

…dated 25/01/2016 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, deleting the addition of Rs.13,06,80,000/- made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), without appreciating the fact and the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in Benerjee vs CIT 49 ITR 112 (Supreme Court) and Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Major Metals Ltd. vs UOI (2007) taxman 185 (Bom.) and further approving share premium of Rs.99 per share merely relying upon the estimated profit for future 10 years and also ignoring that the assessee has no assets, as on date, to earn the estimated profit, based on which the earning per sh…

Sh. Vikrant Kanshal, Bathinda vs. The Icnomet-Ax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 367/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 367/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Parwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…same is not in the nature of income, rebutting the presumption with credible explanation/ material, proving the genuineness of the said credit (refer, inter alia, Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC); Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) (affirming the landmark decision reported at [1958] 34 ITR 669 (MP)); CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC)). As explained in Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC), these provisions only seek to provide statutory 8 Vikrant Kansal Prop. V. K. Teleservices v ITO recognition to t…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…ve been involved was not proved. That was only a suspicion of the Revenue.” 19. It would also be appropriate to notice the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation P.Ltd., at page 83, as under : "In Sreelekha Banerjee Vs. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112, this Court held that if there was an entry in the account books of the assessee which showed the receipt of a sum on conversion of high denomination notes tendered for conversion by the assesssee himself, it is necessary for the assessee to establish, if asked, what the source of that money was and to prove that it was not income. The Department…

Sh. Basant Kumar, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 514/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 514/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 40A(3)

…matter is well-settled per a series of decisions by the Apex Court, as well as by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court – to one of which the AO has referred, viz. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) CIT v. Biju Patnaik [1986] 160 ITR 674 (SC) 8 ITA No. 514 (Asr)/2017 (AY 2014-15) Basant Kumar v. Dy. CIT Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) Hari Chand Virender Paul v. CIT [1983]…

The Income Tax Officer, Gurdaspur vs. Sh Joginder Singh, Gurdaspur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 148/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)

Section 143(3)

…purpose was placed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the decisions in Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC); Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC); and Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC) (refer paras 2 and 3 of the assessment order). In appeal, the assessee explained that he is in the business of manufacture of batteries, maintaining accounts. All the four bank accounts, deposits in which were enquired during assessment, find reflection in his regular books of account. The source for the same, with reference to his cash book,…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tulip Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ubmitted Paper Book. 4.4.10 With regard to the applicability of the provisions of se::ion 68 of the Act, it was submitted that the A.O. places reliance on the 19 M/s.Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Supreme Court. decision in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee V.CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 SC, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unexplained cash credit is justified simply if the assessee fails to offer an explanation, or the explanation offered by the assessee is no: found to be satisfactory by the A.O. 4.4.11 The appellant contended that the ratio of the above judgment is applicable only to those cases where the assesse…

Shankar Jhalani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

Section 144Section 40

…view was taken as in case of Indian woolen 7. 227 ITR 391 (Raj) - Golcha Properties P Ltd 8. 250 ITR 575 (Del) - Law Medica 9. 240 ITR 322 (KER) - Beena Metals 10. 229 ITR 181 (MP) - System India Casting 11. 50 DTR 502 (ITAT, Jaipur) - Deepak Dalela 12. 49 ITR 112 (SC) - Shri Lekha Banerjee 13. 288 ITR 10 (SC) - Kachawala Gems In view of the above, where the assessee filled the appeal /CO may kindly be dismissed and where revenue filled appeal may kindly be allowed. ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 23 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO 11. The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee…

Jasamrit Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginer Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Constructions Income Tax Officer-6(3)(2) Private Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Flat No. 901, Building 'B' Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ashok Tower, Near Itc Hotel Mumbai 400020 Parel, Mumbai 400017 Pan – Aabcj8295L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aarju Goradia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…a case of circuiting transactions intended to route black money into company. The ld DR while distinguishing the decisions relied upon by the ld AR placed reliance on the following decisions in support of her arguments:- i. Sreelekha Banerjee and Ors. vs. CIT 49 ITR 112 (SC) ii. Income Tax Officer vs. Zara Trading P. Ltd. ITA No. 3284/Del/ 2009 dated 26.02.2010 and Khushara Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 4247/Del.2009 iii. Major Metal Ltd. vs. Union of India 207 taxmann.com 185 (Bom) iv. Bisaka Shares Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ITA No. 1493/Kol/2013 v. CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) vi. Shankar Industries vs. CI…

Shri Om Prakash Phatandas Panjwani, Indore vs. The ACIT 1(2), Indore

In the result Ground No. 1 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

ITA 968/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ITA No.968/Ind/2016, A.Y. 2008-09 Omprakash Phatandas Panjwani आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Omprakash Asstt. Commissioner of Income Phatandas Panjwani, Vs. Tax, Circle 1(2) 44, Gopal Bagh, Indore Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.ADMPP8053F Respondent by Shri Rajeev Jain, Sr.DR Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal, CA (AR) Date of Hearing: 02.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 19.01.2018 ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM. This appeal fi…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…t in bank a/c of the investor company for subscribing the share capital of the assessee company. The ld. AO rejected these evidences on surmises and conjectures. Hon’ble Justice Hidayatullah of the Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC); 120 observed that the Income Tax Department cannot by merely rejecting unreasonably a good explanation, convert good “proof into no proof” Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Co Vs CIT 37 ITR 271 has held that the surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of pr…

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 3617/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3617/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The A.C.I.T.-27(3), Vs. Shri Vikrant Vikas Raikar, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Prop. M/S Elegant Construction, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Plot No. 8, Hotel Pearl, Vashi, D.K. Sandu Marg, Chembur, Navi Mumbai - 400071 Mumbai - 400071 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpr2711C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia (DR)

Section 143

…AO to 10% of the total amount of bogus purchases made during the relevant year. The Ld. DR relying on the various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunals including the judgment passed in Kachwala Gems 288 ITR 10 (SC), Sreelekha Banerjee 49 ITR 112 (SC), Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC) and the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in N.K. Protein Ltd. Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal No. 240, 241, 261, 242, 260 of 2003, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is not in accordance with the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, therefore, the sam…

Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. Moksha Securities (P) Ltd

ITA/475/2017HC Delhi28 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…lf and confirmed the finding of the CIT (A) that the additions made by the AO were not justified. 10. Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sreelekha Banerjee v CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 to urge that the onus lay on the Assessee to explain the income from undisclosed sources. In the present case that burden was not discharged by the Assessee. According to him, the CIT (A) failed to notice that the AO had in fact conducted the enquiry and it is the Assessee who is unable to furnish a satisfactory explanation for the credit entr…

Smt. Gialso Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 814/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Smt. Gialso Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 876, Sector-11, Ward-3, Huda, Panipat Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahopd3907A Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

…(Cal) " Parkash Textile Agency Vs ICT (1980) 121 ITR 890 (Cal) " Oriental Wire Ind. (1981) 131 ITR 688 (Cal) " CIT Vs United Commercials & Ind. Co. (1991) 187 ITR 597 (Cal) " M. A. Uneer Kutly Vs CIT (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker) " Sreelekha Banerjee Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) " CIT Vs Jalan Timbers 223 ITR 11 (Gau) " CIT Vs Sreelekha Bannerjee 491 ITR 112 (SC) " Sanker Industries Vs CIT 114 ITR 689 (Cal) 7. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and furnished the additional evidence and stated as under: “Assessee hereby prays for admittance of additional evidence enclosed at Pg. 31 to 1…

Sanjay Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6097/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. L. M. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR

Section 68

…. Therefore, the onus to prove the identity of the creditors, capacity of creditors to advance money and genuineness of the transaction had been fulfilled by the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Shreelekha Banarjee Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) " CIT Vs Shree Gopal & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 285 (Gau) " Precision Finance (P) Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal.) " CIT Vs Baishnab Charan Mohanty (1995) 212 ITR 199 (Ori) " United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. (1994) 187 ITR 596 (Cal.) " Oriental Wire Ind. Pvt. Ltd. (1981) 134 ITR 688 (Cal.) " C. Kant & Co. (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal.) 7 Sanja…

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5448/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5448/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Shyam Sunder Jindal, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 12A, Green Avenue, Sector-D, Tax, Central Circle-30, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj0184N Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(viii)Section 4

…nt, Furthermore, the Ld. AO has not been able to bring any material on record to disprove the statement of the Appellant. Here, it would not be out of place to highlight the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 (SC), wherein it has been held that the department should not reject the explanation of the assessee -without any convincing evidence on record. The relevant passage from the judgment of the Hon 'ble Court has been usefully extracted hereunder: "Before the department rejects such evidence, it must either show an inherent weakness in the explanatio…

Shri Krishna Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2878/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2878/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sh. Krishna Charitable Trust, Vs Jcit, C/O-M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, Range-2, South Extension, Part-I, Ghaziabad New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagts8457F Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 68

…oshan Di Hatti vs. CIT (SC) 107 ITR 938 and Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT (SC) 501TR 1. Reliance is further placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Courts as under:- (i) Vasantibai N. Shah vs CIT (BOM) 213 ITR 805 (ii) Sreelekha Banerjee & Ors. Vs. CIT (SC) 49 ITR 112 (iii) CIT Vs Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal) 232 ITR 820 Thus in the light of the above facts, it is held that the AO was justified in making addition of Rs.27,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The same is hereby confirmed. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 are dismissed.” 7. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submi…

Dharani Dhar Panda, Ganjam vs. ITO, Phulbani Ward, Phulbani

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 68

…25 (SC) has held that CIT(A) has plenary power in disposing an appeal. The scope of his power is co-terminus with that of ITO. He can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do. In the case of Sreelekha Banerjee vs CIT, (1963), 49 ITR 112 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the department cannot by merely rejecting a good explanation unreasonably, convert good proof into no proof. I, therefore, set aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition of Rs.7,25,000/- u/s.68 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld CIT(A) and allow the gro…

Ladi Srinivas Rao, Rayagada vs. ITO, Rayagada Ward, Rayagada

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 394/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Ladi Srinivas Rao, Prop. Maa Vs. ITO, Rayagada Ward, Baishno Devi Modern Rice Rayagada Mill, At/PO: Gumuda, dist: Rayagada. PAN/GIR No. ACDPL 8345 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR Date of Hearing : 10 /01/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10/01/ 2017 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Berhampur, dated 2.12.2013, for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. The appeal is time…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…um/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 50 Settlement Commission, in his dissenting opinion, has correctly applied the law. Shri Mehta has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 ; Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112; and CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 . Shri J. Ramamurthy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue, has supported the majority view and has submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the receipts claimed to be winnings from races were income from other sources and that no case is made out…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), Mumbai

ITA 6314/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)